The evidence (that you have pointed out) is due to people looking for evidence and not assuming that, because it appeared that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was extinct, that the evidence would not exist.
Evidence doesn't just often fall into our laps - a good amount of it is gained by people looking for it. But not all the evidence was gained from people trying to find evidence of the woodpecker's existence. There was already evidence independent of this search that gave evidence for its existence that led some people to seek out more evidence.
So about that evidence: The evidence that species can stop leaving evidence for their existence for some periods of time is independent of the hunt for the Ivory Billed woodpecker. There is evidence that certain circumstances can increase the chances of a species going unnoticed which is independent of looking for the Ivory Billed woodpecker There is evidence that woodpeckers exist which is independent of the search for the Ivory Billed woodpecker. There is evidence that during the recent past Ivory Billed woodpecker's existed which is evidence gained entirely independently of the Ivory Billed woodpecker seeker's quest. I wouldn't be surprised if a non-seeking ornithologist or twitcher has claimed to have incidentally seen an Ivory Billed woodpecker which would evidence independent for the woodpecker grep.
So there isn't actually an absence of evidence for the existence of the Ivory Billed woodpecker. There is evidence that supports that it is likely extinct, but there it isn't like the Ivory Billed woodpecker hunters are looking for a creature they thought up by intuition or something - there is also evidence for the ongoing existence of the Ivory Billed woodpecker, but this seems to be dwindling.
The "Species previously thought to have been extinct" analogy doesn't get you anywhere with your absence of evidence argument because there is always a presence of evidence in support of their continued existence.
That's why I would find it more surprising to find a 6 foot Goblin in Macclesfield forest than I would be to find something akin to a chicken-sized Compsognathus-alike). There isn't a complete absence of evidence to draw on here.
Now if we can at last get past this "absence of evidence" straw man
You claim that you aren't arguing that, but everything I've read thus far seems otherwise. You calling it a straw man is a straw man unto itself.
we might at last be able to get to the point where we can compare the evidence in favour of god existing with the evidence that implies that the very concept of god is a human invention.
You obviously don't see the dilemma. You showing evidence that a god was invented by man does not debunk the concept of God, it only debunks a preconceived notion of God.
You get rid of Zeus and Thor pops up. You get rid of Thor and Artemis pops up. you get rid of YHWH and Allah pops up. All the while the basic concept of God remains intact only because it is untouchable. And why is it untouchable? Because if God does not exist, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest definitively that there isn't.
You cannot prove something does not exist if it does not exist.
In your mind it may be reasonable to assume that no God exists. That's fine. That doesn't however prove God false, now does it? Then you're right back to square one, which is it why it's a logical fallacy to begin with.
But in order to do that we will need to agree on what concept it is we are comparing evidence for.
That's endemic of the overall problem; people trying to define what God is. I'm not here to defend or deny God (I literally take the agnostic position on the subject), I'm simply pointing out the futile attempt at employing logical fallacies as a means to an end.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
If the deity is beyond nature, then how can humans, operating in a reality which is natural, claim to have experienced it?
I'm not saying a deity exists or doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that God for many people is a personal experience; something proven to them but cannot be proven to others necessarily. It is the same concept of love. I cannot prove what my thoughts are because they are my own. I could tell you what my thoughts are, but I might be lying, or embellishing, etc.
My point is that you can't use science to debunk the entire concept of God because the very concept is either too vague or far too broad.
What you can do, like I do, is point out how specific things in, say, the bible are contradictory. That does not get rid of god, so to speak. That only destroys a preconceived notion claiming to be about God. Does that make sense?
But there is nothing about love that is beyond nature; even if we don't fully understand it, it's still natural and can be investigated by common methods.
Then you should have no trouble prove to me what love is. Now you've piqued my curiosity.
Yes they claim this, but that doesn't mean it's like it
I know this, which is why I'm not claiming that the atheist or theist side is correct in their assumptions. They're all assumptions, and that is really my only point.
by your own example, god is beyond nature and neither can be experienced naturally or investigated by any known methods.
Which leads one to believe that people who claim to have "felt" god, or "spoke" to god, or "experienced" god are misinterpreting what they experienced, because god is beyond nature.
I'm only explaining what some claim, and if true, it cannot be proven. It may be complete and utter bullshit, but I can't prove that it is.
But how is the question "is there a god?" a valid question?
I see validity in the question, but I don't see a true answer. That is one debate that has been going on since man drew breath it seems. We're no closer at closing that chapter than when it was first opened, and that is because (as I've been saying) they are unprovable positions.
You say god is beyond nature. You agree that there is a lack of objective evidence. You also say there can't be objective evidence because he is supernatural.
I'm not saying god is anything, I'm telling you how the concept of god continues throughout the ages.
Well then, what in this natural reality that we experience was used to come to the conclusion that there might be a god?
Ask a theist. But you should also be aware that given there are far more theists in the world than atheists that there seems to be some relevance. If nature is how you choose to answer all questions, then what natural reason causes mankind to be so drawn to the abstract concept of God?
I suppose that question is just as valid.
if there's no reason to even ask the question, then the answer (god) is irrelevant. Until there is reason to ask the question, any answer that people come up with is just a product of their individual imaginations.
Perhaps you see no relevance, but the mere fact that the question has been asked and deeply pondered by all generations of human beings makes the question extremely relevant. The answer to the question is what is so elusive though.
I wouldn't at all be surprised to know that in 1,000 years after you and I are dead this question will still be asked and still ultimately remain unanswered.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
And the point that Straggler, among others, fails to understand, is that the absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence
Hi RAZD,
I've been thinking a little on the implications of an absence of evidence, and to help explain my thoughts I've come up with an analogy:
Imagine I have a fishtank. It's large, filled with water, plants, rocks and little decorative underwater ruins. Suppose I gave you the tank and told you that it contained a goldfish. Seeing as how I'm a trust-inspiring fellow you at first believe me and set out observing the fishtank in hopes of spotting the fish. However, despite looking from all angles, tempting it with fish food etc. you don't catch sight of the fish. Now skeptical inquiry enters the picture. Why can't you see the goldfish? Is it because it's not there? Possible. (The tank contains enough rocks and plants to conceal a hiding fish). But because I told you that the tank contains a fish you must accept both possibilities as equally probable in the absense of evidence. So you take a "4" position on the existence of the goldfish.
Now, the fact that the goldfish never shows itself is certainly not proof of its non-existence. It might come out and nibble the fish-food when you're not looking, and perhaps it has an unusual aversion to being observed. But could the fact that the fish remains hidden suggest that it isn't there? Could the absense of evidence be evidence of absense in this case?
I think your reference to the coelacanth and the ivory-billed woodpecker is missing an important point. As far as I can tell, nobody is claiming that the absence of evidence is ever proof of absense. The fact that an animal believed to be extinct for millions of years still existed does not change the fact that the vast majority of animals believed to be extinct, have not been found to still exist. So while there certainly is no evidence that rules out the possibility of Megalodon still existing (unless we count the absense of sightings and fresh carcasses to be evidence), would it not be fair to consider the probability of it still existing to be as likely as any other presumed extinct creature for which there is no recent evidence? Almost zero in other words.
I'd have to say I'm a 6 in my disbelief that the Megalodon still exists. I don't believe there's any proof that it doesn't exist, but I don't think it to be likely. Does this make me a pseudo-skeptic?
Would it be pseudo-skepticism if you eventually came to the conclusion that the fishtank was very unlikely to contain a goldfish?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
PS. I realize that I have been drawn off topic in my own thread. Shame on me, and all that. But I have a feeling that this thread is never returning to the OP so I might as well partake in the discussion that has already taken hundreds of posts.
The significant point here, is that those people who went looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker did so irrationally and illogically. They used a very poor system for discovering the truth about this world, and they happened to be right.
This isn't about identifying a methodology that works every time and is never, ever wrong. This is about identifying a methodology that is rational, consistent, logical... and works the best.
Correct, it is not about a methodology, it is about whether or not there is a possibility. The methodology you use to determine if a possibility is true (or not) is independent of what is being looked for.
Objective empirical evidence of absence is evidence of absence
Hi Meldinoor, nice to see you back on your thread.
Imagine I have a fishtank. It's large, filled with water, plants, rocks and little decorative underwater ruins. Suppose I gave you the tank and told you that it contained a goldfish. Seeing as how I'm a trust-inspiring fellow you at first believe me and set out observing the fishtank in hopes of spotting the fish. However, despite looking from all angles, tempting it with fish food etc. you don't catch sight of the fish. Now skeptical inquiry enters the picture. Why can't you see the goldfish?
What you have is empirical objective evidence of absence, not absence of evidence. You also have evidence of normal behavior of living goldfish, including feeding times, patrolling their environment and schooling with other goldfish. You have looked in the reasonable places for a long enough time that a normally behaving living goldfish would be observed. Next you need to rule out less normal behavior.
Is it because it's not there? Possible. (The tank contains enough rocks and plants to conceal a hiding fish).
Hiding is not normal goldfish behavior unless there is a predator in the tank: one can check to see if there is a predator.
One possibility is that the goldfish is dead, that it was living when you had the tank but has since died. Dead fish normally float, but you have rocks with nooks and crannies that could trap a dead fish in a place that would be virtually impossible to observe from outside the tank.
Another possibility is that the goldfish in question are eggs:
quote:Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers. They produce adhesive eggs that attach to aquatic vegetation. The eggs hatch within 48 to 72 hours, releasing fry large enough to be described as appearing like "an eyelash with two eyeballs".
Thus observation would need to extend over a week and to look for extremely small and hard to see fry.
But because I told you that the tank contains a fish you must accept both possibilities as equally probable in the absense of evidence. So you take a "4" position on the existence of the goldfish.
Hearsay is not empirical objective evidence, so the position for the existence of the goldfish is nothing more than assertion, opinion.
If the tank was observed continuously (by video camera say) for a period of a week, and at the end of that time observation focused on looking for small "eyelashes with eyeballs" and still came up empty, the objective empirical evidence of absence of any goldfish from all normal goldfish areas of the would be sufficient for a level III claim, especially if several people are involved in looking in the tank and studying the video footage at an enlarged scale. See IIIa.
Whether this is a "Dawkins" 5 or 6 position would depend on how you define those when evidence is involved (as they are originally defined, evidence is not a part of the definitions, just opinions).
Now, the fact that the goldfish never shows itself is certainly not proof of its non-existence. It might come out and nibble the fish-food when you're not looking, and perhaps it has an unusual aversion to being observed. But could the fact that the fish remains hidden suggest that it isn't there?
Again, this is not normal living goldfish behavior, especially when food is provided. If the period of observation is long enough that any eggs should have hatched, and the observations have been keen enough to observe "eyelashes with eyeballs" in all the possible visible locations, and still no goldfish has been sighted, you have evidence of absence in all those places and in all those times.
Could the absense of evidence be evidence of absense in this case?
Again, this is not an absence of any evidence, only of positive evidence. The evidence of absence, however, is sufficient to theorize (tentatively) that there are no living goldfish present in the observed confines of the tank.
I think your reference to the coelacanth and the ivory-billed woodpecker is missing an important point. As far as I can tell, nobody is claiming that the absence of evidence is ever proof of absense.
What these two are, is proof that the absence of evidence is not proof of absence. That is all that is required of them. Curiously, when it comes to the possibilities of deities, there are people that claim it is proof of absence.
Would it be pseudo-skepticism if you eventually came to the conclusion that the fishtank was very unlikely to contain a goldfish?
No, because you have a reasonable amount empirical and objective evidence of absence when a normal living goldfish should have been observed, if a living goldfish existed within the tank.
This is similar to the empirical objective evidence that shows that a plesiosaur does not exist in Loch Ness.
You are simply repeating a series of false arguments about certainty, proof and various other things that have already been made and dealt with in this and other threads. The state of the debate (as I see it) is this:
1) Uncertainty is innate in any evidence based argument. Thus those atheists who are making evidence based arguments are by definition not claiming certainty or proof. Only likelhood.
2) Objective evidence in favour of a particular inherently unknowable and disprovable concept being a human invention is sufficient grounds upon which to be very sceptical and to conclude that the entity in question almost certainly does not exist (a la Santa Claus and, despite RAZD's ridiculous proclamations of agnosticism, I would say the IPU too).
3) There is no such thing as an absence of all objective evidence because no claim operates outside of human history, culture and psychology.
Hyro writes:
You get rid of Zeus and Thor pops up. You get rid of Thor and Artemis pops up. you get rid of YHWH and Allah pops up. All the while the basic concept of God remains intact only because it is untouchable. And why is it untouchable? Because if God does not exist, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest definitively that there isn't.
Exactly. Irrefutable entities are irrefutable. But we can watch god concepts retreat into ever diminishing gaps. We can say with ever increasing certainty that every supernatural explanation posited to any question has failed at the expense of a naturalistic one. Ultimately we are left with the desitic god. The god that does nothing but provide a supernatural answer to the question of why people believe in gods at all. Why do we think the supernatural answer to that question will fare any better than every single one of the previous supernatural answers ever posited?
And if the very concept of god is not the result of the human desire for explanation and meaning (as all of the objective evidence available suggests that it is) then where and how did it originate?
That's endemic of the overall problem; people trying to define what God is.
Well if we don't know what it is how can you be agnostic about it? I am thinking of a concept. I know what it is. But I am not going to tell you. Do you believe concept X exists? Now concept X could be buttered toast or Apollo or the US constitution or infra red radiation. It could be black holes, Kermit the frog, water, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, Superman, paintballing, ballroom dancing, coffee, happiness, god, morality, Russia etc. etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum.
Do you believe concept X exists? How can you possibly say unless you know what concept X is? You can say "I don't know" but if concept X is buttered toast or Russia that is pretty fucking stupid answer to that particular concept. Saying "I don't know" with regard to knowing what the concept in qustion is and saying "I don't know" with regard to believing the concept exists once it has been defined are not the same. They should not be conflated.
Until "god" is defined in some sense it isn't even possible to be agnostic about the subject.
Hyro writes:
I'm not here to defend or deny God (I literally take the agnostic position on the subject)
How? If you don't know what god is how can you be agnostic about it?
Hyro writes:
I'm simply pointing out the futile attempt at employing logical fallacies as a means to an end.
I am not employing statmemts of logical certitude. Fallacious or otherwise. I am employing evidence based arguments of likelihood.
Bertrand Russel writes:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".
Well if we don't know what it is how can you be agnostic about it? I am thinking of a concept. I know what it is. But I am not going to tell you. Do you believe concept X exists?
I don't get it. Why can't I be agnostic about it?
I, quite literally, DO NOT KNOW if concept X exists or not. I lack the knowledge, what's the problem?
Do you believe concept X exists? How can you possibly say unless you know what concept X is? You can say "I don't know" but if concept X is buttered toast or Russia that is pretty fucking stupid answer to that particular concept.
It'd be even fucking stupider for me to have taken the position that it doesn't exist!
I suppose I could weasle out and say (in a nasally nerdy voice) that I lack a positive belief for concept x because I haven't been convinced that it does, in fact, exist... but what a pompous asshole I'd be.
The best answer to the question "Do you believe in concept X?" is "I don't know."
I'm not saying a deity exists or doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that God for many people is a personal experience
I completely get this, and have always respected this. But if someone claims that god is a persoanl experience in reality, they can't also say god is supernatural and not part of reality. That's the contradiction I see in the whole thing.
If you can experience god physiclally in reality, then (1) there should be a method to detect god, and (2) god is part of reality and not supernatural at all.
However, if he is supernatural and undetectable, then no one can claim with any honest (or expect to be taken serious) that they've experienced god. That's impossible for god to be undetectable, not part of reality, but yet people can experience him. That is completely contradictory, don't you think?
My point is that you can't use science to debunk the entire concept of God because the very concept is either too vague or far too broad.
...and completely made up.
Then you should have no trouble prove to me what love is. Now you've piqued my curiosity.
Lets not get all deep into this; will you agree that whatever love is, its natural and happens in reality?
Oni writes:
But how is the question "is there a god?" a valid question?
Hyro writes:
I see validity in the question
How so, and, what did you use as evidence to give the question validity?
But you should also be aware that given there are far more theists in the world than atheists that there seems to be some relevance. If nature is how you choose to answer all questions, then what natural reason causes mankind to be so drawn to the abstract concept of God?
Man has always tried to answer questions beyond it's knowledge; god has always been an easy answer.
What causes thunder? God
What makes the sun rise and set? God
What made organisms? God
What made planets and solar systems? God
And then throughout history, you can witness the rise and fall of 1000's of god concepts, UNTIL, and this is important to note, the rise of science and scientific inquiry.
Its not that nature is a better answer, its that nature is the only answer we find. Name one thing that requires god to exist that CANNOT ever be answered through nature?
Perhaps you see no relevance, but the mere fact that the question has been asked and deeply pondered by all generations of human beings makes the question extremely relevant.
That doesn't mean we can't question the validity of the question, we do this in every other field of study.
I wouldn't at all be surprised to know that in 1,000 years after you and I are dead this question will still be asked and still ultimately remain unanswered.
if he is supernatural and undetectable, then no one can claim with any honest (or expect to be taken serious) that they've experienced god. That's impossible for god to be undetectable, not part of reality, but yet people can experience him. That is completely contradictory, don't you think?
I don't think it is contradictory, I just think it is rather convenient that God gets to slip in and out of the natural realm at whim. The way some theists posit the the theme is that in order to begin to understand God you first have to believe, as a child does, without any proof. You're supposed to believe and then proof of his existence will be supplied. I call bullshit, but that's what they say.
Lets not get all deep into this; will you agree that whatever love is, its natural and happens in reality?
One could make an argument in either direction. No one really knows with any certainty.
How so, and, what did you use as evidence to give the question validity?
The fact that trillions of people throughout human history say that it is valid makes it valid. On some level you have to wonder why it is that the God meme has persisted so thoroughly. There are only two real options: Either there is a perfectly good reason why such a belief was naturally selected or God exists.
Man has always tried to answer questions beyond it's knowledge; god has always been an easy answer.
Perhaps, but why is it do pervasive and independent of other cultures? Sure, the gods may vary but the central theme occurs without collaboration.
And then throughout history, you can witness the rise and fall of 1000's of god concepts, UNTIL, and this is important to note, the rise of science and scientific inquiry.
And yet the God meme still persists; hence this very forum.
Its not that nature is a better answer, its that nature is the only answer we find. Name one thing that requires god to exist that CANNOT ever be answered through nature?
The First Cause/Prime Mover.
To reiterate my position, I am playing a bit of a devil's advocate role here. I'm not a religious man, but I the significance of the role of God on mankind cannot be brushed aside as if inconsequential or irrelevant.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
I also feel its convenient, but I personally see the contradiction in having any concept be both undetectable and out of the realm of natural reality, and yet somehow it can still be experienced in reality - its bullshit, as we both agree, but I think its also contradictory.
Or whats the favorite term here ... cognitive dissonance?
One could make an argument in either direction. No one really knows with any certainty.
So you feel that love could be both supernatural and not part of reality, while also being experienced naturally and in reality?
The fact that trillions of people throughout human history say that it is valid makes it valid.
What's the difference between one person and a trillion? If its valid due to good evidence, then its valid, period. Right?
There are only two real options: Either there is a perfectly good reason why such a belief was naturally selected or God exists.
Right, and there is a method to find out if it's naturally selected - on the other hand, the other is out of this world, universe, reality and nature ... which seems more consequential?
Perhaps, but why is it do pervasive and independent of other cultures?
Do you believe we had a common ancestor, modern man evolved in a single area in Africa, etc.?
No culture is independent ... they all came from somewhere else, where other cultures existed. Traditions carry over.
The First Cause/Prime Mover.
I see no objective evidence for the need to invoke a first cause or prime mover, and I've asked repeatedly for someone to provide some ... no one has, so I'll continue to assume that its human nature to assume a first cause is needed regardless of whether ther eis evidence or not to conclude this.
Which to me makes the god answer irrelevant if you can't provide an objective reason for needing him.
It's like saying "God was needed" ... "For what?" ... "I don't know..." - Well, whats the point then?
I am playing a bit of a devil's advocate role here.
I know Hyro, we're just musing.
I'm not a religious man, but I the significance of the role of God on mankind cannot be brushed aside as if inconsequential or irrelevant.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I think god is inconsequential in reality and is irrelevant as an answer to any question about the world we live in and the reality we experience that may come up.
=CSI, quite literally, DO NOT KNOW if concept X exists or not. I lack the knowledge, what's the problem?
Indeed. You don't know what X is. Therefore how can you possibly comment on the existence of X?
CS writes:
It'd be even fucking stupider for me to have taken the position that it doesn't exist!
What doesn't exist?
I suppose I could weasle out and say (in a nasally nerdy voice) that I lack a positive belief for concept x because I haven't been convinced that it does, in fact, exist... but what a pompous asshole I'd be.
Pompous asshole or not. But what concept are you lacking evidence for?
The best answer to the question "Do you believe in concept X?" is "I don't know."
The best answer to the question "Do you believe in concept X" is "What the fuck are you talking about? What is X?"
Any proclamation of "I don't know" relates to your lack of knowledge as to what X is. It has nothing to do with whether or not concept X (whatever that may be) exists or not.
Right. So I don't know if it exists or not. Me not knowing what it is, is why I don't know if it exists or not. Where's the fucking stupidity!?
CS writes:
I, quite literally, DO NOT KNOW if concept X exists or not. I lack the knowledge, what's the problem?
Indeed. You don't know what X is. Therefore how can you possibly comment on the existence of X?
I don't know what it is AND I don't know if it exists or not. How is admiting that I lack the knowledge of its existence commenting on the existence of it? Saying I don't know IS witholding comments on its existence.
The best answer to the question "Do you believe in concept X?" is "I don't know."
The best answer to the question "Do you believe in concept X" is "What the fuck are you talking about? What is X?"
Well sure, of course.
But you've claimed that it'd be fucking stupid to say that you don't know if it exists or not. I think that that is fucking stupid
Any proclamation of "I don't know" relates to your lack of knowledge as to what X is. It has nothing to do with whether or not concept X (whatever that may be) exists or not.
No. "I don't know if concept X exists or not" is not just about my lack of knowledge of what concept X is.
No. "I don't know if concept X exists or not" is not just about my lack of knowledge of what concept X is.
If you don't know what concept X is how can you claim to be agnostic about concept X? I am thinking of a concept. I know what it is. But I am not going to tell you. Do you believe concept X exists?
How can you possibly have any opinion at all unless you know what concept X is? Saying "I don't know" with regard to knowing what the concept in question is and saying "I don't know" with regard to whether or not you beleive in the concept once it has been defined are not the same thing. The two questions should not be conflated. But you seem determined to conflate them.
quote:It's invalid becasue it premises the question on the alleged absurdity of believing in God.
That's not what "reductio ad absurdum" means. You're equivocating the English concept of "absurd" with the logical meaning of "absurd."
Instead, as Perdition pointed out, "reductio ad absurdum" is essentially proof by contradiction: You start with a statement that you assume to be true and then follow it until you reach a contradiction. This proves the logical "absurdity" of the original statement.
However, as Perdition also points out, this requires defined objects so that you can then extract statements from that eventually lead to the contradiction.
So not only have you equivocated, you've also made a false statement: Reductio ad absurdum doesn't assume the premise. In fact, it proves it false by assuming its truth.
Do you even know what that phrase means?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
